On 07/09/26 13:36:08, Tom Rini wrote: > On Mon, Sep 07, 2026 at 09:16:36PM +0200, Jorge Ramirez wrote: > > On 07/09/26 10:13:39, Tom Rini wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2026 at 10:40:59AM +0200, Jorge Ramirez wrote: > > > > On 07/09/26 12:47:39, Neha Malcom Francis wrote: > > > > > Hi Jorge > > > > > > > > > > On 07/09/26 12:38, Jorge Ramirez wrote: > > > > > > On 27/08/26 11:01:41, Jorge Ramirez wrote: > > > > > >> On 21/08/26 16:02:18, Jorge Ramirez wrote: > > > > > >>> On 17/08/26 16:38:40, Jorge Ramirez wrote: > > > > > >>>> On 07/08/26 16:01:05, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz wrote: > > > > > >>>>> OP-TEE secure storage (CFG_RPMB_FS) relies on an RPMB > > > > > >>>>> partition, but > > > > > >>>>> U-Boot's OP-TEE RPMB supplicant only speaks the legacy > > > > > >>>>> single-command > > > > > >>>>> interface, which is bound to eMMC. SoCs that are UFS-only and > > > > > >>>>> have no > > > > > >>>>> eMMC (for example the Qualcomm SA8775P) therefore cannot back > > > > > >>>>> OP-TEE > > > > > >>>>> secure storage from U-Boot today. This series adds that support. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> It introduces the transport-agnostic OP-TEE RPMB "subsystem" > > > > > >>>>> interface > > > > > >>>>> (PROBE_RESET / PROBE_NEXT / FRAMES), where the normal world > > > > > >>>>> enumerates > > > > > >>>>> the RPMB device and reports its kind, size and CID, then > > > > > >>>>> carries the > > > > > >>>>> signed frames. The legacy eMMC supplicant is preserved > > > > > >>>>> unchanged, only > > > > > >>>>> renamed to rpmb_emmc.c, with the new UFS backend added as a > > > > > >>>>> separate > > > > > >>>>> rpmb_ufs.c; the two are mutually exclusive via Kconfig > > > > > >>>>> (SUPPORT_UFS_RPMB > > > > > >>>>> depends on !SUPPORT_EMMC_RPMB) because the OP-TEE supplicant > > > > > >>>>> handles a > > > > > >>>>> single RPMB transport. The subsystem interface is UFS-only for > > > > > >>>>> now; eMMC > > > > > >>>>> can be migrated onto it later as the legacy path is retired. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> On top of that it adds a UFS RPMB transport that moves JEDEC > > > > > >>>>> RPMB frames > > > > > >>>>> to and from the RPMB Well-Known LUN using SCSI SECURITY > > > > > >>>>> PROTOCOL IN/OUT. > > > > > >>>>> The per-region 16-byte CID is derived by BLAKE2b-hashing the > > > > > >>>>> exact > > > > > >>>>> device-id string the Linux kernel builds > > > > > >>>>> (ufshcd_create_device_id() > > > > > >>>>> plus a "-R<region>" suffix), so OP-TEE derives an RPMB key that > > > > > >>>>> matches > > > > > >>>>> the one Linux would use. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> The first patch is a standalone UFS descriptor fix the RPMB > > > > > >>>>> path depends > > > > > >>>>> on (UTF-16BE string decoding); the transport patches also > > > > > >>>>> include a > > > > > >>>>> power-on UNIT ATTENTION retry and a DMA-alignment bounce for > > > > > >>>>> the RPMB > > > > > >>>>> WLUN. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Note: reading UFS descriptors reliably also requires the > > > > > >>>>> descriptor > > > > > >>>>> data-segment cache-invalidation fix, which has already been > > > > > >>>>> posted and > > > > > >>>>> merged separately, so this series is based on top of it. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Tested on the Qualcomm IQ-9075-EVK (SA8775P): OP-TEE with > > > > > >>>>> CFG_RPMB_FS > > > > > >>>>> programs the RPMB key through U-Boot and reads/writes > > > > > >>>>> secure-storage > > > > > >>>>> objects, with the derived CID matching the Linux UFS device_id > > > > > >>>>> ABI. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Dependencies: > > > > > >>>>> Linux kernel: > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/[email protected]/ > > > > > >>>>> Op-tee > > > > > >>>>> https://github.com/OP-TEE/optee_os/pull/7881 > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> v4: > > > > > >>>>> - ufs: decode string descriptors: dropped the in-place > > > > > >>>>> ufshcd_str_desc_to_cpu() byte-swap helper; instead added an > > > > > >>>>> endian > > > > > >>>>> argument to utf16_to_utf8() (UTF16_HOST/LITTLE/BIG_ENDIAN) > > > > > >>>>> and decode > > > > > >>>>> with UTF16_BIG_ENDIAN, mirroring the kernel's > > > > > >>>>> utf16s_to_utf8s(). > > > > > >>>>> Existing EFI callers pass UTF16_HOST_ENDIAN. > > > > > >>>>> - ufs: RPMB transport: build the SECURITY PROTOCOL CDB with > > > > > >>>>> put_unaligned_be16()/put_unaligned_be32(); drop the > > > > > >>>>> rpmb_frame_request() helper in favour of > > > > > >>>>> get_unaligned_be16(); move > > > > > >>>>> ufs_rpmb_read_geometry() to the patch that first uses it so > > > > > >>>>> it is not > > > > > >>>>> an unused static function during git bisect. > > > > > >>>>> - ufs: per-region CID/size: reject an out-of-range > > > > > >>>>> device-reported > > > > > >>>>> logical block size before shifting and split the size > > > > > >>>>> computation into > > > > > >>>>> separate statements for readability; order <u-boot/...> after > > > > > >>>>> <linux/...>; note that the serial hex encoding matches the > > > > > >>>>> kernel > > > > > >>>>> device-id ABI. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> any further comments, is it ok to merge? > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> EOW reminder - this has been pending for a long while > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> anyone care to comment please? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kernel changes accepted and op-tee changes merged. > > > > > > Just this one pending with no comments for nearly a month. > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe we can merge? > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks > > > > > > Jorge > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like you're sending to the old mailing list instead of > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > hi Neah, > > > > > > > > ah interesting, maybe that explains it depending on people'w workflows: > > > > I see it hasnt landed on u-boot lore's. > > > > > > > > I just run get_maintainers.pl and the recommended list is > > > > > > > > jramirez@trex:u-boot (ufs-rpmb.v4 $) $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl > > > > drivers/tee/optee/Makefile > > > > Jens Wiklander <[email protected]> (maintainer:TEE) > > > > Ilias Apalodimas <[email protected]> > > > > (maintainer:TEE,commit_signer:2/3=67%) > > > > Tom Rini <[email protected]> (maintainer:THE > > > > REST,authored:1/3=33%,added_lines:1/3=33%,removed_lines:1/2=50%) > > > > Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <[email protected]> > > > > (commit_signer:2/3=67%,authored:2/3=67%,added_lines:2/3=67%,removed_lines:1/2=50%) > > > > [email protected] (open list)... > > > > > > > > still I can see it on patchworks with Neil being the gatekeeper. > > > > > > Is your tree out of date? That's not what it shows here, we updated that > > > a while ago. > > > > not as long as this series apparently.. plus maintainers were in copy > > and actively reviewing v1/v2/v3 > > > > but yeah, These patches were developed on top of "ece349ade29 Prepare > > v2026.07" when the development started (so before the list was > > updated). > > > > anyway, so what is the next step. resend posting as v5 on top of > > v2026.10-x ? > > Does v4 apply cleanly to the current next branch? >
yes it does > -- > Tom
